Investigation of Dental Implants Operated in Private Dental Office: Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to analyze the demographic characteristics of patients who underwent dental implant surgery and various features of the implants applied, in a private clinic from January 2019 to June 2022 in Turkey by descriptive methods. Materials & Methods: The files of the patients who were operated analyzed. Gender, age, edentulous status, implant brands used and various characteristics of the patients were recorded. The obtained data were evaluated with descriptive statistical analysis. Results: Total of 90 patients, 39 (43.34%) male and 51 (56.66%) female, were included in the study. When analyzed by decades, it was determined that the most treated range was 39-48 years with 27 (30%) patients. Of the 247 implants applied, 139 (56.27%) were placed on the right side (1st and 4th regions), and 108 (43.72%) were placed on the left side (2nd and 3rd regions). When examined according to the jaws they were applied to, 137 (55.46%) of them were applied to the mandible and 110 (44.53) of them were applied to the maxilla. Of these implants, 44 (17.81%) are in the anterior position (incisors and canine teeth region), and 203 (82.18%) are in the posterior position (1st premolar and beyond). Conclusion: Dental implants can be easily applied to every individual in line with the appropriate indication. The findings in this article will help operators to choose the suitable indication.

Keywords

• Cross-sectional study
• Dental implant
• Dental treatment

References

1. Duymuş ZY, Güngör H. Dental İmplant Materyalleri. J Dent Fac Ataturk Univ. 2013;23(1):145–152.
2. Urvasizoglu GG, Saruhan N, Ataol M. Dental Implant Uygulamalarının Demografik Ve Klinik Ozelliklerinin Degerlendirilmesi. J Dent Fac Ataturk Uni. 2016;26(3):394–398. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.290237.
3. Yaltirik M. Tum Yonleriyle Tek Dis Implant Planlamaları ve Uygulamalari All Aspects of Single Tooth Dental Implant Planning and Applications Mehmet YALTIRIKa, Alen PALANCIOGLUa agiz, Dis, Cene Cerrahisi AD, İstanbul Universitesi Dis Hekimligi Fakultesi, Istanbul. Turkiye Klinikleri Journals; 2015. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.2921.2001.
4. Çakur YDDB, Sümbüllü AGDMA, Harorlı PDA. Operasyon Öncesi İmplant Yerlerinin Belirlenmesinde Radyolojik Kriterler Ve Radyolojik Teknik Seçimi. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2007;2007(2):23–30.
5. Bozkurt E, Uslu MO. Evaluation of Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Dental Implant Applications. J of Mef Impl Inst. 2019;3(1):7–8.
6. Sari M, Tumer M. Retrospective Assessment of Dental Implant Applications: Cross-Sectional Study. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci. 2022;28:245–251. doi:10.5336/dentalsci.2021-83695.
7. Philip J, Buijs MJ, Pappalardo VY, Crielaard W, Brandt BW, Zaura E. The microbiome of dental and peri-implant subgingival plaque during peri-implant mucositis therapy: A randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2022;49(1):28–38. doi:10.1111/jcpe.13566.
8. Eltas A, DUndar S, Uzun IH, Malkoc MA. Dental İmplant Başarısının Ve Hasta Profilinin Degerlendirilmesi: Retrospektif Bir Calisma. J Dent Fac Ataturk Univ. 2013;23(1):1–8.

9. Vehemente VA, Chuang SK, Daher S, Muftu A, Dodson TB. Risk factors affecting dental implant survival. J Oral Implantol. 2002;28(2):74–81. doi:10.1563/15481336(2002)028<0074:RFADIS>2.3.CO;2.
10. Bornstein MM, Halbritter S, Harnisch H, Weber HP, Buser D. A retrospective analysis of patients referred for implant placement to a specialty clinic: indications, surgical procedures, and early failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23(6):1109–16.
11. Bural C, Bilhan H, Cilingir A, Geckili O. Assessment of demographic and clinical data related to dental implants in a group of Turkish patients treated at a university clinic. J Adv Prosthodont. 2013;5(3):351–8. doi:10.4047/jap.2013.5.3.351.
12. Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP, et al. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8(3):161–72. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080302.x.
13. Adalı E, Ozden M, Gunbay T, Isik G. Retrospective Evaluation of The Success Rates of Different Dental Implants. J Dent Fac Ataturk Univ. 2018:174–181. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.418844.
14. Urvasizoglu G, Turen T. Dental Implant Uygulamalarında Karsilasilan Intraoperatif ve Erken Donem Komplikasyonların Prevalansi ve Tedavi Yöntemleri: Retrospektif Klinik Calisma. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2019;29(2):259–267. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.498763.
15. Polat ME, Saruhan N, Gojayeva G. Dental İmplant Uygulanan Hastaların Demografik Olarak Değerlendirilmesi. J Biotechnol Strateg Health Res. 2019;3(2):85–90. doi:10.34084/bshr.580426.
16. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Dental implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(1):16–41. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2014.11.007.
17. Penarrocha-Diago M, Demarchi CL, Maestre-Ferrin L, Carrillo C, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Penarrocha-Diago MA. A retrospective comparison of 1,022 implants: immediate versus nonimmediate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(2):421–7.
18. Deng F, Zhang H, Zhang H, Shao H, He Q, Zhang P. A comparison of clinical outcomes for implants placed in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites in periodontally compromised patients: a 1-year follow-up report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25(5):1036–40.
19. Horwitz J, Zuabi O, Peled M, Machtei EE. Immediate and delayed restoration of dental implants in periodontally susceptible patients: 1-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(3):423–9.
20. Schwartz-Arad D, Herzberg R, Dolev E. The prevalence of surgical complications of the sinus graft procedure and their impact on implant survival. J Periodontol. 2004;75(4):511–6. doi:10.1902/jop.2004.75.4.511.